u/TheExaltedPrime

With the recent announcement of our company picking a fight with the Big 3, it seems that Rogers again has decided to try and capitalize on the resting CRTC and test it's luck.

In a letter dated June 23rd, 2026, the CRTC states this:

"Dear Howard Slawner,

I have been informed today that Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (Rogers) informed its mobile wireless customers through a note on their billing statement that it intends to add a $5 monthly charge to their mobile wireless customers’ bills as of 15 July 2026, calling it a Wireless Plan Rate Adjustment.

As you are aware, the Wireless Code, last reviewed in Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2017-200, sets out consumer protections for mobile wireless customers.

Further, the Commission is currently seeking comments on how to make these consumer protections clearer and more consistent in Harmonizing the consumer protection codes, Broadcasting and Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2026-134.

One of these existing protections relates to the minimum monthly charge for services included in the contract. It is defined in the Wireless Code as:

>“The minimum amount that customers will have to pay for wireless services each month if they do not use optional services or incur any additional fees or overage charges. This charge may be subject to taxes, as set out in the contract.”

The minimum monthly charge is a key contract term that cannot be changed by a service provider during the commitment period without the account holder’s or authorized user’s informed and express consent (Section D.1. of the Wireless Code).

To better understand the situation, staff asks that Rogers answers the following questions by no later than 3 July 2026:

• Is Rogers imposing this new monthly charge during a customer’s ongoing commitment period? Answer for customers who are subscribed to a longer-term contract and those on a month-to-month contract, describing when the fee would first be imposed.
• In either case, please explain how this mandatory monthly charge is presented in your contracts and whether it is done so as part of the minimum monthly charge key contract term.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Scott Hutton
Vice-President, Consumer, Analytics and Strategy"

Now, I'm not a lawyer by any means, and I do want to thank everyone for commenting on our previous post. I do put a lot of research into all laws in Canada, and now that my company is a telecommunications company and a mobile carrier, I tend to gravitate towards what the CRTC will do and the laws that protect consumers and companies alike.

So, I do want address a few things that people might think this letter will or will not mean:

1. Is the CRTC going to make big changes in the telecom space?

No, well. Mm. Let's say for the sake of everything, sure. The Wireless Code is a mess at the moment, and so is the Telecom Orders. Take for example the whole thing with Spectrum.

WBS is sunsetting in 2027, and NCL is the slated successor. However, WBS is Tier 4. NCL is not. NCL is n77.

The argument that TELUS, Bell, Rogers and Quebecor have always pointed out is that NCL is not Tier 4 Spectrum, and that FBS (Auctioned Spectrum) is the correct path. So they won't sign a MVNO agreement unless you have Tier 4 Spectrum, found in 2021-130.

"The Commission therefore determines that in order to be eligible to access the mandated facilities-based wholesale MVNO access service, wireless carriers must possess a mobile spectrum licence at the tier 4 level or higher in a given tier 4 area. The Commission also determines that the national wireless carriers and their affiliates are not eligible."

But again, that order is from 2021. Soon after, May 2023 is what I call D-Day for MNOs and MVNOs. The Commission did say this in 2022-288.

"In light of the above, the Commission determines that holders of TEL licences, regardless of whether they cover an entire tier 4 area, qualify for eligibility in the corresponding coverage area. To be clear, TEL licence holders must also satisfy all other eligibility requirements set out by the Commission in Telecom Regulatory Policy 2021-130 or as a determination in this decision. The Commission therefore directs the incumbents to modify their proposed tariffs in accordance with this determination."

So to circle back, the CRTC knows that NCL is the new player but they haven't updated their rulings in regards to new entrants.

You can't launch a new facilities based MVNO without Tier 4, thus, a catch 22 because NCL is now the new WBS. It's the new private 5G or entry spectrum.

The CRTC is a regulator, and they operate entirely on the premise that they are outside political influence. They are slow, and methodical, going through each piece of paper and each conversation to see and test it verses the market.

These new fees? You will probably see them for a while, and the telecom companies pushing them will probably keep charging them until they get told not to.

2. Can we complain against the CRTC or the CCTS about these charges?

Yes and no. The CCTS is mandated by the CRTC based on policy and decisions. Regulatory wise, if the wireless code is updated, sure. If a new Telecom decision is made, sure.

But Commission letters and other consultant proceedings will not be enough to sway a regulatory team in the telecom industry.

3. Can I fight it?

Yup, by switching from your provider to either a local one or a brand that doesn't have fees. Fizz and Freedom are one of them, so is a few others.

Hurt the telco's, more importantly, the big three, where it hurts, their pockets. Some people might argue "Muh, they need to recover costs" They don't. Bell might be on a show right now trying to change the narrative by firing their staff and saying "See, see! We need these fees so we can stay afloat!" while boasting a annual revenue of $6 billion. Will they see a reduction in that? Sure, but Bell is a big company. So is Telus, so is Rogers. Not our fault they couldn't see the writing on the wall.

Final thoughts (Prime):

As the CEO of the 7th Carrier in Canada, I always have something to say when it comes to Telco's.

Either they do their marketing and customer service really good, or they fall prey to the age old problem of greed and micromanaging.

Because let's be fair, their front facing service agents (Those you meet in person and in stores) are amazing. Not rude, not telling you off for asking simple questions, just locals doing their jobs.

But at the national level, calling has become a chore. 45 minute wait times, companies shutting down manager contacts, no normal interactions, and everyone thinking customers are just out to save money.

There is a huge disconnect, and it's a huge glaring problem. "Connecting Canada" more like "Lining our departing CEO's pockets because they led us through the new tech age".

For us, I don't think I will ever hire outside parties or people who say they can handle the call volumes, then act like the people on the other line are just a number, not an actual human being.

Thanks.

- Billy.

Today, the CRTC once again weighed down on these new "device" charges and went after Rogers.

I want to be very clear to the readers of this post on a few things before we get a lot of the "scum" or "this is wrong" comments or even "The CRTC needs to stop putting more and more stress on the companies" kind of comments.

As a MNO company (Every-Day Computers Inc, Wireless Carrier) I have to follow these same rules.

When I bought my eSIMs for my customers, it cost me under $10,000 CAD for my eSIMS, I thought about doing an eSIM fee, but the CRTC shut that down and I figured out why.

Imagine this, if we could play a little thought game:

You have 10,000 customers, and you charge each person 15$ for a eSIM charge, and 40$ for "Device Activation" fees.

That's $550,000 for those 10,000 customers that you just gained.

Then add $750,000 per month on top of that. Now imagine if every month, you have over 300,000 people signing up every month.

Do the math here.

The telecom industry will lose up to 30% of their annual revenue without these fees, which is good and bad.

Good in that customers will finally not be charged some crap fee, but bad because some of those fee money's goes into staff, infrastructure upgrades, repairs, you name it.

But at the same time, looking at Bell, they are laying people off on the "fact" because they want people to think that a) We are losing money and we can't afford these people and b) These new rules will affect our bottom end.

It won't.

Bell has, in total, over 3 million subscribers on their network. Imagine getting over $140,000,000 a month in revenue but you still can't keep people?

TELUS makes over 8 billion a year in revenue, and yet we still need fees to handle their infrastructure?

If these companies need these device fees, truly, then they need to start looking at what is costing them money, how they can survive, and what they need to change going forward.

(NOTE: This is my personal opinion, not the view of Every-Day Computers, everything I say here is from a industry perspective, and does not reflect on what we do, kind of)

Today, the CRTC has issued TELUS and Bell Canada new directives over their new charges to customers.

TELUS was told to explain why it didn't go against the act for the "eSIM charge" and Bell was told as well as well as reply on some of their information in a letter Bell provided the CRTC.

Taken from Bell's response was this:

"1.             The Commission notes in TRP 2026-43 that consumer groups themselves acknowledged during the proceeding that "fees related to the purchase of a device" could "reasonably be exempt from a fee prohibition because they represent real costs to service providers."  The Staff Letter affirms this view, noting, "[i]n [TRP 2026-43] , the Commission recognized that some fees related to optional services ...that consumers may expressly agree to purchase warranted an exemption from the prohibition because there were direct costs associated with their provision."  The Device Handling Fee is precisely such a fee – it covers the demonstrable fulfillment costs of processing, handling, configuring, and delivering a physical device to the customer.  These are tangible costs that we incur regardless of whether the order is completed online, in-store, or over the telephone.  From a policy perspective, it is reasonable that these costs be borne by customers purchasing a device rather than by the broader base of customers who may not have purchased a device."

TELUS has yet to respond to the CRTC, but the CRTC has asked Bell this in response to their reply:

"Following the announcement of Bell’s new device handling charge, Scott Hutton, Vice-President, Consumer, Analytics and Strategy, sent you a letter on 6 May 2026, informing you that it would not appear that the device handling charge falls under the exemption considered by the Commission for optional services and products in the above-noted policy.

On 10 June 2026, you replied to the letter sent 6 May 2026, indicating that you disagree and believe that your device handling fee is fully compliant with the Act and the Wireless Code.

I’m requesting that you confirm whether Bell has nonetheless ceased its practice of charging a device handling charge to customers opting to purchase a device along with their wireless service plan. This information must be submitted to the Commission by no later than 17 June 2026."

Telus was sent this:

"Following the announcement of TELUS’ new SIM purchase fee, Scott Hutton, Vice-President, Consumer, Analytics and Strategy, sent you a letter on 9 June 2026, informing you that it would not appear that the SIM purchase fee falls under the exemption considered by the Commission for optional services and products in the above-noted policy.

I’m requesting that you confirm whether TELUS has ceased its new practice of charging its customers a SIM purchase fee. If TELUS has not ceased this practice, explain why and provide supporting rationale as to why TELUS considers this practice to be in compliance with the exemption for optional services and products set out in the above-noted policy, or in compliance with the policy more generally. This information must be submitted to the Commission by no later than 17 June 2026."

This comes at no surprise to us. I knew this was going to be the case. The biggest carriers in the country playing cowboys while trying to ruffle the CRTC and say "Well, what are you going to do about it" is something that makes me none the wiser.

If bigger companies can bully our regulatory body, what else can they do? Everyone followed what the CRTC said, but Bell and TELUS can't? Rogers did, Quebecor did and so did everyone else, but these guys?

If this doesn't prove that their pockets are more important than our needs, than I don't know what else to say.

Oh look!

The CRTC basically slapped TELUS with the whole FAFO doctrine.

Gotta love it.

So basically, for people who are just joining in, TELUS has tried to do 2 things:

- Lock User Devices for 60 days (Ev-Com (Me) has intervened and we are waiting for the Part 1 to be published)

- Put in a new fee to recuperate losses from losing activation fees. (Bell tried this already).

So now what happened?

TELUS got a letter just like Bell did and it's basically the CRTC saying "FAFO".

I mean, it doesn't get any more blunt than this.

Prime here.

I mean, I am kind of shocked, per say, on the lack of conversation or the willingness to address the Northwest's lack of infrastructure.

Good on CBC Daybreak North to ask those questions and say "It feels like you're not answering my questions"

If TELUS does not want to upgrade BCTel infrastructure in the North, or have some sort of redundancy to critical things for their consumers, then say that.

Don't dodge the questions or commit to saying "We build Canada" and then refuse the rest of Canada.

So today, ISED has launched a consultation on Towers, Spectrum and other things in light of the new bill being pushed through the HoC in Canada.

The TLDR is that it forces national carriers to not block roaming agreements based on "feasibility" but to prove it as well.

This comes immediately. This is huge for people like me who have been in the past trying to sign an agreement and then the Telecoms denying us based on our "feasibility" in their eyes.

Going to post this on here on Planhub.

Most of you know that here in the North, we had a huge fiber break caused by vandals. A few of you reached out, and had asked for our opinion, and this is our "business" conversation. We didn't name call, or say anything bad, but we raised some good points.

We hope to see more of the CBC in the coming weeks move on some of our active filings, but for now, hearing our voice and our opinion is more than enough.